United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
HIGHTOWER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
this Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No.
8 and Request for Production No. 9, filed on July 19, 2019
(Dkt. No. 10); Defendant's Response, filed on August 7,
2019 (Dkt. No. 13); and Plaintiff's Reply, filed on
August 14, 2019 (Dkt. No. 15). On July 22, 2019, the District
Court referred the above motion and related filings to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas (“Local Rules”).
case arises out of an automobile collision that occurred on
October, 26, 2018, in Travis County, Texas. Plaintiff Jordan
Moorhead (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Elizabeth
Jacobson Klene (“Defendant”) negligently failed
to yield to Plaintiff's motorcycle while he was traveling
on Ranch to Market Road 2244, causing him to crash into
Defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered
severe injuries as a result of the collision.
March 4, 2019, Plaintiff, a citizen of Texas, filed this
negligence lawsuit against Defendant, a citizen of Utah,
invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. On March 28, 2019, Defendant filed an
Answer denying negligence and asserting that Plaintiff was at
fault for the collision. See Dkt No. 5.
alleges that the initial discovery in the case shows that
Defendant's vehicle failed to yield to oncoming traffic.
Plaintiff contends that the “lack of any attempt to
yield supports an inference that Ms. Klene may have been
distracted while driving.” Dkt. No. 10 at p. 2.
Accordingly, on May 29, 2019, Plaintiff served his Second Set
of Interrogatories on Defendant and asked, in relevant part,
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
For each cellular telephone that You had on You on the day of
the Subject Incident, please provide the cell phone number
and cell phone provider (T-Mobile, AT&T, etc.).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
All Your cellular phone records for the period of 2 hours
before the Subject Incident to 2 hours after the Subject
Dkt. Nos. 10-4 at p. 4 and 10-7 at p. 5. Defendant objected
to both discovery requests on the bases that the requests
were overly broad, sought irrelevant information, and
violated the privacy rights of Defendant and non-parties.
After the parties failed to resolve the dispute, Plaintiff
filed this Motion to Compel seeking an order compelling
Defendant to respond appropriately to the above discovery
requests. Plaintiff has now limited his Request for
Production No. 9 to “all cellular phone records
reflecting incoming and outgoing telephone calls and text
messages for the period of thirty minutes before and thirty
minutes after the incident made the basis of the
lawsuit.” Plaintiff's Reply at p. 1. Plaintiff
further “offers to enter into a protective order to
keep Defendant's information and records
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “The scope of discovery is broad
and permits the discovery of ‘any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense.'” Crosby v. La. Health Serv. &
Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)). “A discovery request is
relevant when the request seeks admissible evidence or
‘is reasonably ...